Both the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of Policy are integral to the constitutional framework. Both of these are equally important and should be seen in the context of each other. While the Fundamental Rights encourage personal welfare, the Directive Principles encourage the welfare of the community.
Fundamental rights policy is more important than director elements-
•Fundamental rights promote political freedom and equality, which are the basis of democracy, while the Directive Principles represent the overall ideology, with the adjustment of values such as socialism, liberalism, Gandhism.
•Fundamental rights are protected by the constitution and are justifiable, whereas the Directive Principles of Policy do not. Therefore, fundamental rights are more important from this point of view.
•Fundamental rights essentially provide resources for the personality development of the person whereas the policy director is dependent on the resources.
Directive Principles of Policy stronger than Fundamental Rights –
• The rational restriction on fundamental rights is done on the basis of public order, unity, integrity and morality of the country.
•The Directive Principles are also the basis for amendment of Fundamental Rights. For example, making the right to property a legal right and the basis of the 86th constitutional amendment is also the policy director.
•The preamble of the Constitution lays greater emphasis on socio-economic justice, which makes the importance of Directive Principles of Policy clear.
Fundamental Rights and Policy Directive Principles Supplementary Concept –
•Fundamental rights establish political justice, while the Directive Principles promote social and economic justice. Complementing both can promote the overall democratic system.
• Fundamental rights emphasize personal interests, so both can complement and establish balance between the individual and society.
•The Fundamental Right states what has been given to the citizens while the Policy Director states what else remains to be given. In this way the Directive Principle of Policy guides the Fundamental Rights.
• In Sajjan Singh vs Rajasthan case it was said that the Directive Principles are the basic principles of governance of the country and the provision of Part 3 of the Constitution should be understood along with these principles.
•In Minerva Mill v Union of India case, Part 3 and Part 4 were said to be complementary to each other. In Unnikrishnan vs Andhra Pradesh case, it was clarified that Part 3 and Part 4 are supportive of each other.
Fundamental Rights and Policy Directors in the Judiciary
• In Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras 1951, a dispute first emerged as to who should give supremacy to the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of Policy. The Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are primary and the Directive Principle of Policy is in a supportive form, hence the Fundamental Rights are supreme.
In order to give effect to this decision, the First Constitution Amendment 1951 stated that special provisions could be made for the socio-economically backward classes. Also, the Second Constitution Amendment 1955 stated that if the state acquires property for public purpose and gives some compensation, it cannot be challenged in court.
• In Golaknath v. State of Punjab suit, 1967, the Supreme Court refused to amend the Fundamental Rights and the position of the Director was subordinated to the Fundamental Rights.
• The 24th Amendment 1971 was brought to give effect to the above decision and it was said that the Parliament can amend all parts of the Fundamental Rights.
• By adding Article 31 by the 25th amendment, it was said that 39b, 39c contained socialist elements which would not be valid if they violate a fundamental right like Article 10 19, 31, if implemented.
• The 24 and 25th amendments were challenged in Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala 1973 where the Court declared them constitutional and stated that they do not violate the basic structure.
•The extension was later extended by the 42nd Amendment 1976 and it was stated that the enforcement of any policy directive element would not be valid if it violates any fundamental right.
• The 42nd Amendment was challenged in Minerva Mills v Union of India suit 1980. The court declared it unconstitutional and said that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary to each other and should not be viewed separately.
This article is written by Nitu, Student, Department of Laws, Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat.